What is ERC-7779？

The pace of Ethereum standards development rarely slows down. With ERC-7779 now live in the wild, users, developers, and wallet providers are asking the same question: what does another ERC going live actually change for everyday crypto and DeFi experiences? This post breaks down why new ERCs matter, how they reach production, the practical implications for approvals and transaction UX, and what OneKey users can expect as ecosystems adopt the latest interfaces.

First, a quick refresher: what is an ERC?

An ERC (Ethereum Request for Comments) is a community-driven application-level standard that defines how contracts and apps should behave so they can interoperate reliably (think ERC‑20 or ERC‑721). ERCs emerge through the EIP process, from draft to final, with open discussion and peer review. If you’re new to how standards get made, the EIP process is documented in detail in the official spec. See the EIP lifecycle and rationale in Ethereum’s standards docs and the EIP meta‑process:

• Learn how Ethereum standards work on the official developer portal (see Ethereum standards)
• Deep dive into the EIP lifecycle and status definitions (see EIP‑1)

To keep wallets, dapps, and Layer 2s aligned, ERCs often build upon foundational EIPs such as:

• EIP‑712 for human‑readable, structured data signing (see EIP‑712)
• EIP‑165 for interface detection and compatibility checks (see EIP‑165)
• EIP‑2771 for meta‑transactions via trusted forwarders (see EIP‑2771)

What ERC‑7779 aims to improve

While each new ERC is unique, recent standards trend toward two goals:

• Safer, more granular approvals and transaction permissions. Users want to authorize precisely what a dapp can do, for how long, and with clear on‑device prompts. This direction follows lessons from ERC‑20’s approve/transferFrom flow and the evolution toward permit‑style signatures. See background on approve’s pitfalls and safer patterns (see OpenZeppelin approve notes).
• Better wallet UX via richer context. Standards increasingly encode metadata so wallets can render understandable prompts rather than opaque bytecode, aligning with human‑readable signing conventions. Read about typed structured data for safer prompts (see EIP‑712).

In practice, ERC‑7779 “going live” means early adopters (dapps, SDKs, and wallets) have begun integrating an interface designed to deliver safer approvals, better decoding, and fewer confusing signatures—without breaking compatibility with existing tokens and protocols.

Why this matters right now

The timing is significant. Ethereum’s recent upgrades lowered L2 fees and broadened on‑chain activity, while account abstraction and new wallet patterns are maturing:

• Dencun on mainnet unlocked cheaper data availability for rollups and boosted L2 adoption (see Dencun announcement)
• Account abstraction is moving from theory to implementation, enabling programmable wallets (see EIP‑4337)
• A proposed transaction model (EIP‑7702) introduces new ways to authorize actions with improved UX and security trade‑offs (see EIP‑7702)
• Ethereum’s long‑term roadmap continues to prioritize scalability and security, which affects how wallets and standards evolve (see Ethereum roadmap)

Against this backdrop, any ERC that tightens approval safety and improves prompt clarity can have an outsized real‑world impact.

For everyday users: what changes in your wallet

• Clearer prompts, fewer blind signatures. Wallets implementing ERC‑7779‑style metadata can show you what a contract is asking—and why—using structured data where possible (see EIP‑712).
• More granular permissions. Expect per‑function or per‑amount controls to become more common as ecosystems converge on permit‑like flows and best practices (see ERC‑20 permit extension EIP‑2612 and Permit2 patterns).
• Easier allowance hygiene. Keep using an allowance scanner to spot and revoke risky approvals, especially when migrating to new standards (see Etherscan Token Approval Checker).
• Lower cognitive load across L2s. As standards adopt consistent interfaces, your experience becomes more uniform across networks.

Helpful tools and references:

• Etherscan Token Approval Checker for revocations and monitoring
• Permit‑style flows and revocation patterns adopted in modern DEXs (see Permit2 overview)
• OpenZeppelin’s guidance on ERC‑20 approvals and safety caveats (see OpenZeppelin approve notes)

For developers: integration playbook

• Backward‑compatible first. Maintain ERC‑20 compatibility while layering new interfaces behind EIP‑165 detection so older wallets don’t break (see EIP‑165).
• Prefer typed data over raw bytes. Move user‑facing signatures to EIP‑712 where viable to enable clear signing in hardware wallets and better risk prompts (see EIP‑712).
• Consider permit flows. If your use case grants spend permissions, embrace permit‑style patterns (EIP‑2612) or battle‑tested libraries that reduce approval attack surface (see EIP‑2612 and Permit2 overview).
• Support meta‑tx where appropriate. With EIP‑2771, allow gas‑sponsored flows while keeping replay protections and domain separation intact (see EIP‑2771).
• Use audited libraries. Rely on maintained primitives and interfaces rather than rolling your own (see OpenZeppelin Contracts).
• Threat model new code paths. Any new hook or permission surface introduces potential reentrancy and approval‑abuse risks—map them to known SWC categories and test thoroughly (see SWC Registry).

Developer references:

• EIP‑2612 (permit for ERC‑20)
• Permit2 overview and best practices for approvals
• OpenZeppelin Contracts 5.x for standards‑aligned implementations
• SWC Registry for vulnerability classes

Wallet integration and hardware considerations

When a new ERC rolls out, real user safety depends on how wallets implement it:

• Accurate method decoding: Wallets should decode interfaces via EIP‑165 where applicable and display human‑readable intent instead of function selectors.
• Clear signing on device: Where structured data is available, hardware wallets should render human‑readable fields so users can verify what they are signing (see EIP‑712).
• Simulation and risk cues: Pre‑signing simulation, allowance diffs, and contract provenance cues help catch malicious approvals before they land on‑chain.

What OneKey users can expect:

• Standards‑first signing: OneKey supports mainstream Ethereum standards, including structured data signing, helping you avoid ambiguous bytecode prompts (see EIP‑712).
• Transparent transaction review: The OneKey App surfaces method, asset, and amount details before you confirm on device.
• Open‑source ethos: With an open codebase, independent reviewers and the community can scrutinize how new standards are integrated—vital when ERCs introduce fresh permission paths.

As ERC‑7779 adoption expands, OneKey will continue prioritizing clear signing and compatibility across L1 and L2 networks while maintaining rigorous security practices.

Security hygiene: the essentials don’t change

• Use per‑dapp, minimal allowances whenever possible; avoid unbounded approvals unless strictly necessary.
• Periodically revoke stale approvals, especially after trying new dapps or migrating to new standards (use Etherscan Token Approval Checker).
• Treat new flows like new attack surfaces. Phishing kits evolve to mimic fresh wallet prompts—verify domains, contract addresses, and chain IDs.
• Prefer audited, well‑maintained contracts and libraries (see OpenZeppelin Contracts) and understand common smart contract weakness classes (see SWC Registry).

Looking ahead

ERC‑7779 is part of a broader wallet and UX upgrade cycle spanning account abstraction (see EIP‑4337), proposed transaction authorization models (see EIP‑7702), and the steady cadence of network improvements on Ethereum’s roadmap. As standards mature and converge, users should see fewer confusing prompts, safer approvals by default, and a more consistent experience across L2s.

If you’re managing meaningful on‑chain value, consider pairing your preferred software wallet with a hardware wallet. OneKey emphasizes clear signing for standards like EIP‑712, open‑source transparency, and multi‑chain compatibility—practical guardrails as new ERCs roll out and the transaction surface evolves.

References and further reading:

• Ethereum standards overview on ethereum.org (see Ethereum standards)
• The EIP process (see EIP‑1)
• Dencun mainnet announcement and implications for L2s (see Dencun announcement)
• EIP‑712 (structured data)
• EIP‑165 (interface detection)
• EIP‑2771 (meta‑transactions)
• EIP‑2612 (permit)
• Permit2 overview
• EIP‑4337 (account abstraction)
• EIP‑7702 (proposed authorization model)
• Ethereum roadmap
• OpenZeppelin Contracts
• SWC Registry
• Etherscan Token Approval Checker

All links above are to authoritative sources for deeper technical context.